The ability of computer software to satisfy the intended application

[qalsang]

Hi

Under above clause 7.6 , it is states that

" The ability of computer software to satisfied the intended application shall be confirmed."

- How to do this ?
- Can anyone provide an example?

 

[Amine.arafa]

Re: The ability of computer software to satisfied the intended application

Hi qalsang
To answer this requirement, I entered datas with already known results to the software, and cheked if I had the right answer from the measurement system.
The example in my case is a home made software for Xbar s chart, to validate it I used the datas from AIAG 2nd edition SPC and it gave me the same chart, it was accepted by our CB auditor.
The other covers might have more methods and examples to answer your questions if you have a more specfic software
Best regards
Amine

 

[CRYOSILVER]

NPL put out a good practice guide that covers validation of software. I'd post a link, but my post count is too low, but if you google "Software Support for Metrology Best Practice Guide No. 1" it pops up.

That might make a good starting point.

 

[Marcelo]

It means software validation.

The link for the previous comment is this: http://www.npl.co.uk/publications/measurement-systems-validation-validation-of-measurement-software.

 

[ThinkingQuality]

Hello - new to the forum, but I have a similar issue - after years of ISO certification, with no scope change the auditor called upon us to verify our Engineering Design Software - not used for measurements or monitor, used for engineering design. These software packages include StaadPro, PipeFlo, Ceasar etc. They are used for calculations and modelling and not for measuring or monitoring.

Anyway, my question is what suggestions are out there for addressing this 'stretch' of the standard under 7.6.

Any suggestions would be appreciated.

 

[drgnrider]

Hello - new to the forum, but I have a similar issue - after years of ISO certification, with no scope change the auditor called upon us to verify our Engineering Design Software - not used for measurements or monitor, used for engineering design. These software packages include StaadPro, PipeFlo, Ceasar etc. They are used for calculations and modelling and not for measuring or monitoring.

Anyway, my question is what suggestions are out there for addressing this 'stretch' of the standard under 7.6.

Any suggestions would be appreciated.

Welcome to the Cove.

As this is design software, I would ask for clarification and what specifically they are citing under 7.6. Since your software is commercially available and purpose-built for the task it does, I am sure the manufacturer has proven their software before selling it. When you acquired the software it would have been "suitable for [your] use". As long as it still meets all the current standards that you subscribe to, it should still be suitable.

Maybe contacting the manufacturer, or checking their website, to see if there are any known issues/bugs with the version that you have that they would have issued a patch for?

 

[isoalchemist]

Yes, I'd push back on the auditor for some clarification. They might be able to find an issue in other parts of the standard, i.e. validation, but based on what you've stated I can't see an issue with 7.6.

 

[soc1214]

Agree with the others on this, push back on the auditor to site specific non-conformance.

We also only use design software (CATIA, NASTRAN/PATRAN), I was able to explain with some assistance from the engineering group, how what they are using is equivalent to using pen and paper. That stopped the auditor in his tracks, as we were not customizing the software for our needs.

 

[Mallya]

I think it's just a matter of verification on site; I would advise to use data of known results and check the software can deliver as intended, and then you keep the records.

Regards

Benny